Challies reviews a biography of John Calvin aimed at very young readers. “It easily held the attention of my six year-old and nine year-old children as I read it all in one sitting (though my two year-old fell asleep before I had completed the first page).” John Calvin (Christian Biographies for Young Readers)
Turk has a beef with study Bibles, and says this regarding the resources laymen may have: “most of the people who own these things don’t really know how to use them. And for many people, my experience is that all that extra paper and ink gets in the way of actually reading the Bible itself. If you add half-again the volume of the actual Bible to the Bible, and nobody was reading the Bible itself before you added all that other stuff, why would they read the Bible-plus-stuff afterwards?” People replace bible study with study Bibles. Often new believers are given them - ‘here, go disciple yourself’, as a substitute for the personal act of making disciples. A beef about study bibles
Hays has some interesting thoughts on Battlestar: Galactica. So say we all-
Hays provides some thoughts on an atheists ‘revisiting’ of the fine-tuning argument (FTA). i) Trying to shift the burden of proof by simply recasting your own position in negative terms is a mere rhetorical trick. ii) To argue that the universe just may not be the way we want it (i.e. suck it up) excludes the atheist from the presumption of methodological naturalism or the uniformity of nature, and thus he must allow for miracles. iii) Invoking a megaverse merely backs the problem up (its also contingent), and exasperates it, since it is an aggregate of a number of improbable universes. iv) FTA’s are based on actual evidence; whereas the megaverse is at best based on promissory evidence – the hope that it will be proved in the future. What faith! v) Asking ‘how’ the Designer would work simply assumes a model of causality that the atheist needs to prove. vi) Asking why the universe it old, OEC’s have answers in their view; YEC’s can claim that the appearance of age is the incidental side-effect of creation ex nihilo. vii) The atheist simply denies the appeal to necessary existence, without arguing his case or engaging with theistic model metaphysics. Revisiting The Fine-Tuning Argument Revisited
Carolyn Mahaney urges mothers to pay attention to their duty to motherhood at all times, not missing moments to instruct for pleasures, etc., because of the seriousness of the work (“I might as well be making a moon shot.”). “We can’t effectively train our children on the side. We can’t discipline them here and there. We can’t teach when we’ve got a free moment. We can’t mother intermittently. Inconsistent training is ineffective training.” Pay Attention
Mahaney continues to exhort mothers to discern the biblical priorities in their season of life, and then self-evaluate to see if one is living in line with those priorities. For mothers with young children, this is: “1. The gospel 2. Your husband 3. Your children” A Question of Priorities
Hays responds to those who object to things like UFC, claiming them to be de facto evil. i) Often the arguments employed are inconsistent, and cannot account for other sports, risk taken in day-to-day life, etc., since their principles must be violated to permit these. ii) Christ-like-ness can be a vague criteria for assessing morality on issues where the Scriptures are silent, since eating spaghetti or using a urinal doesn’t make you more Christlike. Christian gladiators
Bird posted a comment on Scott Clark’s blog to the effect that "There are different ways of appropriating the NPP. The most promising is to recognize the horizontal aspects of justification which NPP interpreters have pointed out (though without reducing justification to a social epiphenomena as some NPP proponents can do). It is this aspect that has been neglected in post-Reformation dogmatics since Paul is just as much concerned with 'Who are the people of God?' as he is with 'What must I do to be saved?'” which he thinks we can learn from the NPP. He thinks that Sanders’ participationist eschatology is a better candidate for the centre of Paul’s thought than “the imputed righteousness of the active obedience of Jesus Christ in order to fulfill the covenant of works!" He was labeled a "sneaky, low-down skunk who embraced the NPP ... while stilling claiming to be Reformed". The Skunk Doth Speakth
People may say what they will about Driscoll – but apparently, in the soon-to-be-aired Satan debate on ABC, opened and closed with a clear, fully-orbed Gospel presentation. “Pastor Mark seemed to be the only one that was challenging each and every member of the other side, bringing evidence against their points, logically articulating why they were wrong. He also defended Lobert, who at one point was under attack, ironically, about her demonic attack.” Preview- Mark Driscoll on Nightline's Satan Debate
No comments:
Post a Comment